3. Collector is sued herein in his official capacity and is a necessary party to. CiVL DIVISION

Transcription

1 Filing # E-Filed tzl03l20l5 01:13:08 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CiVL DIVISION WESTSHORE CLUB HOLDING LLC, a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-CA VS. Division: I BOB HENRIQUEZ, as Property Appraiser; DOUG BELDEN, as Tax Collector and MARSHALL STRANBURG as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, \AfESTSHORE CLUB HOLDING LLC, a Florida corporatiory sues Defendants, BOB HENRIQUEZ as Property Appraiser of Hillsborough County, Florida ("Appraiser"), DOUG BELDEN as Tax Collector of Hillsborough County, Florida ("Co11ector"), arrd MARSHALL STRANBURG ("Stranbur8"), as the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue, and alleges: Allegations Common to all Counts 1. Plaintiff is a Florida corporatiory authorized to do business in the state of Florida. 2. Appraiser is sued herein in his official capacity and is a necessaly patly to the action pursuant to section (2), Florida Statutes' 3. Collector is sued herein in his official capacity and is a necessary party to tire action pursuant to section '(3), Fiorida Statutes'

2 4. Defendant Stranburg is sued in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue and is a necessary party to this action pursuant to section (5), Florida Statutes. 5. The real property forming the subject of this action is located in Hillsborough County, Florida and owned by the Plaintiff, identified as parcel number , hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property." 6. Plaintiff has paid the taxes which have been assessed for the Subject Property in fu1l, pursuant to section (3)(4), Florida Statutes. A copy of the receipt is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A." 7. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent which are required to be performed by Plaintiff in establishing its right to bring this action and to the relief requested. Specificall/, and without limitation, this action has been filed within the time period prescribed by section ,(2), Florida Statutes. 8. Appraiser established the Subject Property's just and assessed values for 2015 in the amount ol$2,633,898, 9. The Subject Property consists of a clubhouse facility, including swimming pool, within the Westshore Yacht Club residential community. The community was developed by WCI Communities, LLC, a Delaware limited liabiiity company authorized to do business in Florida, successor in interest to WCI Communitles, Inc. (hereinafter, "WCI"). The Subject Property is referred to as the "Amenities Facilities" in the recorded Declaration for Westshore Yacht Club.

3 10. Plaintiff acquired the Subject Property from WCI by Special Warranty Deed. dated August 29, 2012, recorded in OR Book 21331,, Page 400, public records of Hillsborough County, Florida, which is described legally as: Tract F, WESTSHORE YACHT CLUB PHASE I according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 104, Page 1, public records of Hillsborough County, Florida. 11. The subject property is dedicated on the plat for the Westshore Yacht Ciub as a common element for recreational purposes, "... arld is specifically nq! dedicated to the use of the public in general." (emphasis added). See, plat book 104, page 2, paragraph 23, public records of Hillsborough County, Florida. 12. Prior to conveying the subject property to Plaintiff, WCI recorded a Third Amendment to the Amenities Declaration for Westshore Yacht Club, which, among other things, removed the Harbormaster Building and adjacent walkway from the definition of the Amenities Facilities. See, Third Amendment to Amenities Declaration for Westshore Yacht Club, attached here to as Exhibit "B". 13. The initial Amenities Declaration for Westshore Yacht Club (the "Declaration") was recorded May 24,2005 in OR Book \5036,Page1899 to 1925, public records of Hillsborough County, Florida. The Declaration provided for use of the Amenities Facilities by both "Deeded ljsers" as wellas "Non-Deeded ljsers". 1,4. Deeded Users are defined as the owner of a residence in the community, together with that person's spouse and unmarried children twenty-two (22) years of age or younger. Deeded Users are required to pay an annual fee in consideration for their use of the Amenities Facilities, referred to as the "Base Amenity Fee (BAF)". The right

4 to use the amenities facilities is appurtenant to property ownership within the community. 15. The Amenities Declaration, Article 5, imposes upon the Deeded Users the obligation to pay all of the costs and expenses necessary for the operations and maintenance of the amenities facilities Non-Deeded Users of the Amenities Facilities are those persons who pay an annual fee to the owner of the Amenities Facilities, but who are not necessarily property owners within the community. Count I 17. This is an action for declaratory and ancillary relief concerning an ad valorem real estate tax assessment for the tax year Jurisdiction is predicated upon Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. 18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1,-'L6 as if fully set forth herein Section , Florida Statutes (the "statute"), perlains to "subdivision property", which is defined as common elements not included within the platted lots intended to be sold, but which are nevertheless "utilized exclusively for the benefit of lot owners within the subdivision, regardless of ownership." The statute further provides that such common elements must be designated as such on the plat or the approved site plan.

5 20. Pursuant to the statute, the value of subdivision property is to be prorated by the property appraiser and included in the assessment of the lots within the subdivision. The effect of the statute is not to exempt subdivision property from taxation, but merely to allocate the tax burden related thereto among the property owners within the development. 21,. Appraiser classified the Subject Property as subdivision property pursuant to the statute from the time the Amenities Facilities were initiaily constructed through tax year In so doing, the value of the Subject Property was apportioned among ail of the iot owners within the Westshore Yacht Club Development, as required by the statute. 22. In tax year 20\3, Appraiser notified Plaintiff that the Subject Property would no longer be classified as subdivision property under the statute, as a result of the Third Amendment to the Amenities Declaration for Westshore Yacht Club. See letter dated June 6, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The stated reason given by Appraiser for reclassifying the subject property was that "...the amenities tract is now open to non-deeded users..." and "...is no longer used exclusively for the homeowners of the subdivision." 23. In fact, Appraiser had previously classified the Amenities Facilities as subdivision property notwithstanding their use by Non-Deeded Users from the inception. 24. Appraiser misapprehends the statute by construing it to require that subdivision property be used exclusively by lot owners. In so doing, Appraiser is

6 impermissibly adding additionai words to the statute. See, Shertoood Park, Ltd, a, Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 4u, DCA 1970). 25. Contrary to Appraiser's interpretation, the statute merely requires that the subdivision property be "utilized exclusively for the benefit of lot owners within the subdivision, regardless of ownership."(e.s.) 26. The Subject Property is, and was at all material times, utilized exclusively for the benefit of the lot owners because the fees paid by Non-Deeded Users on an annual basis reduce the financial obligation of the lot owners to cover all costs of operation and maintenance of the Amenities Facilities, including payment of any ad valorem taxes assessed. Stated differently, the annual fee paid by lot owners would be higher without the contribution by the Non-Deeded Users. In this way, the Subject Property is exclusively used for the benefit of the lot ovmers. 27. Plaintiff is in doubt concerning the Subject Property's entitlement to be classified as subdivision property pursuant to section , Florida Statutes, and is entitled to have that doubt removed by the Court. 28. There exists a present, real and bona fide controversy between Plaintiff and Appraiser over the classification of the Subject Property for ad valorem tax purposes in WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that this Court take jurisdiction over this cause and the parties hereto, enter an order setting aside the assessment on the Subject Property, direct Appraiser to reclassify the property as subdivision property f.or 2015 and to reassess it as such; and further, that this Court enter an order directing Collector

7 to cancel the original bill; and, finaily, to award Plaintiff its costs incurred in bringing this action pursuant to section , Florida Statutes, and award such other general relief as may be just and equitable. Count II 29. This is an action to contest an ad valorem reai estate tax assessment for the tax year 20L5. Jurisdiction is predicated upon '1", Florida Statutes. 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1.-11,,19 and 20 as if fully set forth herein For 2015 Appraiser has assessed the unencumbered fee simple interest in the Subject Property at full market value. 32. Notwithstanding, Appraiser has made no corresponding set off adjustments to the assessments of the lot owners within the Westshore Yacht Club Development, to compensate for his assessment of the Subject Property at market value as non-subdivision property. 33. The effect of Appraiser's actions has been to impermissibly assess the Subject Property to Plaintiff a second time, contrary to Florida law. See, Department of Reaenue u. Morganruoods Green Tree, lnc,,34l So. 2d 756 (FLa.1976). \AfHEREFORE, Plaintiff dernands that this Court take jurisdiction over this cause and the parties hereto, enter an order setting aside the assessment on the Subject Property, direct Appraiser to re-assess the property for 2015 by reducing the value in proportion to the value exported to the lots within the subdivision; and further, that this

8 Court enter an order directing Collector to cancel the original bill and issue a new bill in the re-assessed amount and, finally, to award Plaintiff its costs incurred in bringing this action pursuant to section 1,g4.1g2,F1orida Statutes, and award such other general reiief as may be just and equitable. Florida Bar No HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3700 Tampa, FL rob.kelley@hwhlaw.com relitrevk@hwhlaw.com (813) 221,-3900 (813) FAX Attorney for Plaintiff